6 ms·

What makes you believe that there's anyone in America that does not have access to a doctor? Hospital emergency rooms are required to take and treat all comers

What makes you believe that there's anyone in America that does not have access to a doctor? Hospital emergency rooms are required to take and treat all comers (at least if they want to participate in the system), and the Medicaid system reimburses those expenses. A poor, uninsured person might not be able to get a kidney transplant, but they'll get some level of basic care. And what Mr. Kamen argues is that the income generated by those expensive procedures -- not to mention a segment of the population that is willing to pay for it -- is what will lead to the breakthroughs in the future that will make (say) kidney transplants unnecessary in another generation. What really concerns me is that I know, because I have Crohn's Disease, that I have a much higher risk of colon cancer. Even at forty years old, I'm trying to put myself into a position where I'll be able to deal with that should it happen. But in the ultimate socialized/rationed model, I'm not allowed to buy myself additional treatment beyond the lowest common denominator. Canada recently fought (and lost, thank %deity%) to prevent citizens from getting better health insurance than the socialist plan. In England and other places you're allowed to get better care, but only if you pay for every bit of it -- you can't take the baseline and then pay for the overage. So that's definitely the direction that "progress" is moving in. My biggest objection is that this prevents people from having their own values. I'm not to be allowed to make decisions that balance for or against my lifespan. I can only get the mix that the regulators have deemed appropriate for every person, one size fits all.

run4yourlives 17y ago
Canada recently fought No, the province of Quebec did... Canada's system is not national, it's provincial. BC for instance allows for several areas of private care. I'm not to be allowed to make decisions that balance for or against my lifespan. You just gave examples in both Canada and the UK that showed that you most certainly can. You're argument is bullshit and comes from a place of ignorance - assuming that somehow the rest of the world has some sort of inferior system simply because we have single payers. It isn't true. Every health statistic shows that the US is actually lagging behind. You're fighting each other for a dwindling and ever more expensive piece of the pie, and the solution is staring you right in the face.
- cwan 17y ago
  Sorry, every health statistic doesn't show the US is lagging behind. Look at cancer detection and treatment and survival rates from heart attacks. I think that you can get a system that works with a single payer system - but it's tough to find one that also innovates and is sustainable - there's a good case to be made here that the US actually subsidizes the rest of the world with developments in drugs and medical technologies/techniques.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Please point me to these stats, they seem interesting but I can't locate them.
    - cwan 17y ago
      Here's a start: On cancer: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 and http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716... On heart attacks: http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.0000142671.06167.91v1 http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.... On access to medical technologies: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf
- blhack 17y ago
  The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet. Who do you think pays for medical research and why?
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Prove this. This is nothing more than conjecture and PR taken to laughing stock levels (outside of the US at least). Even in the US, the largest research funder is in fact the US government, just like every other country.
logicalmind 17y ago
I see your slippery slope argument of "the ultimate socialized/rationed model". But aren't you concerned that without any type of public option that no insurance company will insure you at any price given your current condition? It seems that an insurance company would lose money by insuring you. Unless they charge exorbitant prices. Ultimately, your insurance company is going to decide what care you get.
blasdel 17y ago
"you can't take the baseline and then pay for the overage" If that was allowed, there'd be a fuckton of nickel-and-diming going on where it'd be very difficult to avoid being forced to pay overages.
trapper 17y ago
I live in a place with a very good public health care system. I always go private so I can choose my doctors and get the best care. I pay medical insurance for this privilege by choice.

run4yourlives 17y ago

Canada recently fought No, the province of Quebec did... Canada's system is not national, it's provincial. BC for instance allows for several areas of private care. I'm not to be allowed to make decisions that balance for or against my lifespan. You just gave examples in both Canada and the UK that showed that you most certainly can. You're argument is bullshit and comes from a place of ignorance - assuming that somehow the rest of the world has some sort of inferior system simply because we have single payers. It isn't true. Every health statistic shows that the US is actually lagging behind. You're fighting each other for a dwindling and ever more expensive piece of the pie, and the solution is staring you right in the face.

cwan 17y ago
Sorry, every health statistic doesn't show the US is lagging behind. Look at cancer detection and treatment and survival rates from heart attacks. I think that you can get a system that works with a single payer system - but it's tough to find one that also innovates and is sustainable - there's a good case to be made here that the US actually subsidizes the rest of the world with developments in drugs and medical technologies/techniques.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Please point me to these stats, they seem interesting but I can't locate them.
  - cwan 17y ago
    Here's a start: On cancer: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596 and http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716... On heart attacks: http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.0000142671.06167.91v1 http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.... On access to medical technologies: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/113.pdf
blhack 17y ago
The United States is subsidizing the medical expenses of the rest of the planet. Who do you think pays for medical research and why?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Prove this. This is nothing more than conjecture and PR taken to laughing stock levels (outside of the US at least). Even in the US, the largest research funder is in fact the US government, just like every other country.

logicalmind 17y ago

I see your slippery slope argument of "the ultimate socialized/rationed model". But aren't you concerned that without any type of public option that no insurance company will insure you at any price given your current condition? It seems that an insurance company would lose money by insuring you. Unless they charge exorbitant prices. Ultimately, your insurance company is going to decide what care you get.

blasdel 17y ago

"you can't take the baseline and then pay for the overage" If that was allowed, there'd be a fuckton of nickel-and-diming going on where it'd be very difficult to avoid being forced to pay overages.

trapper 17y ago

I live in a place with a very good public health care system. I always go private so I can choose my doctors and get the best care. I pay medical insurance for this privilege by choice.